Issue Number 987 | Better seen and not heard? | Advocate.com Better seen and not heard?  | Commentary | Advocate.com

Advocate.com health Channel
||  Gen Q  ||
 
Better seen and not heard?
High school students across the country are running into the same roadblocks, no matter where their beliefs fall: Must they leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate?
From The Advocate  June 19, 2007
Better seen and not heard?

For two months Amy Sorrell’s job as an English and journalism teacher at Woodlan High School in Woodburn, Ind., was on the line. She didn’t have an affair with a student, nor was she slipping brandy into her coffee. Sorrell, 30, simply OK’d a short op-ed in the school newspaper.

“I can only imagine how hard it would be to come out as homosexual in today’s society,” sophomore Megan Chase wrote in the January 19 issue of The Tomahawk, reacting to a friend’s having come out to her. “There is nothing wrong with them or their brain; they’re just different than you.”

Shortly after the newspaper hit the cafeteria, Sorrell says, she received an e-mail from Woodlan principal Ed Yoder reminding her to run all contentious articles by him. On January 29, Sorrell says, she received a letter from the school brass informing her that all future Tomahawk articles would have to be reviewed before going to print, then a letter February 12 accusing her of insubordination. On March 19, Sorrell, who had taught at the school for half of her eight-year career, was suspended without warning.

Andrew Melin, an assistant superintendent for Woodlan’s school district, says that Sorrell was suspended not because of the column’s content but because she failed to run it by Yoder.

“Homosexuality anywhere can be a sensitive topic, and there are going to be people who fall on all sides of that issue,” Melin tells The Advocate. “The principal is ultimately responsible for what is in the content of any school publication.”

Melin points out that students as young as 11 read the paper.

Sorrell says the content was appropriate for students of all ages. “I just thought that it was going to prompt discussion,” she says. “And yes, there are people who don’t agree with [homosexuality], but that’s the nature of the newspaper. That whole article is about tolerance. That’s the main gist of it: Just be nice. I have a sixth-grade son myself. I think my sixth-grade son can read it and understand.”

At least six states have laws that protect high school journalists from administrative censorship; Indiana is not among them. Sorrell says that on February 8—days before the insubordination letter arrived—the Tomahawk staff she oversaw asked for a meeting with Yoder to discuss freedom of expression; he refused, though he met individually with the paper’s editor.

Sorrell’s attorneys settled with the school district in late April. She’ll keep her job as an English teacher. However, to stay in the district she must transfer to another school, and she can’t advise its student newspaper.

David Hudson, an attorney for the First Amendment Center, says many schools have been grappling with student expression on all fronts, especially as related to LGBT topics. “It is one of the major issues of our time, so that is not surprising that these free-expression controversies are occurring,” Hudson says.

 

On 2004’s National Day of Silence, San Diego–area high school student Tyler Chase Harper wore a homemade shirt to school. On the back was written "Homosexuality is shameful"; on the front, "I will not accept what God has condemned." The next day he wore the same T-shirt, with "Be ashamed, our school embraced" instead of "I will not accept."

On the second day school officials told him to take off the shirt, arguing that it violated their dress code, which bans promotion or portrayal of “violence or hate behavior.” When Harper refused, he was removed from class and assigned to the front office to complete his day’s remaining schoolwork. He later sued the Poway Unified School District, seeking an injunction against the school. He lost in federal court but won in the ninth circuit appeals court. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which nullified the ruling because by then he’d graduated anyway.

The case of Harper—now a student at Wheaton College, a Christian school in Illinois—is before the ninth appellate court again. Why so persistent? It could be a case precedent. Kevin Theriot, a lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said he and his client Harper are fighting for all students’ civil liberties.

“The main point of the case is free speech, and students have their right to be heard on campus,” Theriot said. “Just because other students don’t agree doesn’t mean that he can’t voice [his opinions].”

Harper’s appeal could be bolstered by Chambers v. Babbitt, a 2001 Minnesota case in which a federal district court ruled that a public high school student had the right to wear a shirt with the words "Straight Pride". Justice Donovan Frank wrote in his opinion that the school failed to prove that the shirt disrupted school activities.

Are schools displaying a double standard? Is gay-friendly speech a problem, while antigay speech is protected by law? In a school environment that’s supposed to be free, young people have to wonder.

Visit FortWayne.com to see Megan Chase's column in its entirety.

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

Be the first to comment on this story.

Back to top

Submit a comment for this story:

*Type your comment here (Required, 1000 characters max.):

*Name (Required): 

*Hometown (Required): 

*E-mail address: (Required, but will not be displayed)

Is this comment for publication? 
Yes   No

Daytime phone number: (Required for print publication only and will not be displayed)

Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service.

  

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above. 

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.